On this blog – and everywhere else except in the military –
we’ve long recognized the vital strategic position of Guam and the need to
defend it during war with China. It
couldn’t be more obvious. We’ve also
noted the apparent lack of urgency on the part of the military to institute any
serious base defense plans. Well, here’s
a sad joke of an announcement about a first of its kind defense test for Guam.
Unbelievable. We’ve been discussing the challenges and critical need for defense of Guam for years and only now have we conducted the first ever test of the ballistic missile defense? What a joke. Someone is not very serious about base defense.
But wait … it gets better.
Are you kidding me? This implies we don’t currently have a layered defense capability for our most important base? What has the military been doing for the last decade or two?
This seems to be saying that if China attacked, today, with
more than one missile, we’d be helpless.
The reality is that we should be planning to defend against saturation
attacks and, given the amount of time we’ve had, our base defense should be already
prepared and thoroughly tested.
“… will ultimately integrate …” ???! What have they been waiting for? This implies that a true, layered defense system is still years/decades away.
But wait … it gets still better.
Are we frantically (one presumes) building up our Guam
defenses? Of course we are, right? We’d have to be utter morons not to be
increasing our defenses. Right? … Yeah,
about that …
We’re decreasing our defenses? Are you kidding me? Since when is the defensive requirements of, arguably, our most important forward base determined by environmental concerns? I’m all for reasonable environmental awareness in civilian communities and businesses but we cannot allow environmental concerns to dictate the defensive capability of our most important base. If we need waivers or legislative action or whatever, we need to free the military from environmental concerns that negatively impact vital defense requirements.
You establish vital defense needs first and then make an
honest effort to shoehorn whatever reasonable environmental concerns you can
around the defenses. We’re risking
losing a war because of some isolated environmental concerns? What kind of idiots are running the
military? Well, that was rhetorical
because this blog has definitively established that blithering idiots are
running the military.
We need to wake up and reassess our priorities and
environmental concerns are not the number one priority.
_____________________________
The US military announced today the first-ever test intercept of a ballistic missile from its Guam-based missile defense system … [1]
Unbelievable. We’ve been discussing the challenges and critical need for defense of Guam for years and only now have we conducted the first ever test of the ballistic missile defense? What a joke. Someone is not very serious about base defense.
The MDA described the event as a “pivotal step” towards a larger, more holistic Guam Defense System designed to take on multiple threats at once — a “persistent layered integrated air and missile defense capability.”[1]
Are you kidding me? This implies we don’t currently have a layered defense capability for our most important base? What has the military been doing for the last decade or two?
The Guam Defense System will ultimately integrate multiple independent fire control systems into something that can cope with complex and integrated attacks with salvos across the air and missile threat spectrum.[1]
“… will ultimately integrate …” ???! What have they been waiting for? This implies that a true, layered defense system is still years/decades away.
For several years, US military leaders from the Indo-Pacific region have emphasized the need to build up Guam as both a military staging point and an air-defense hub. However, the process hasn’t been easy, and in October, the MDA proposed scaling back the number of missile defense sites on the island from 22 to 16 due to environmental impact concerns.[1][emphasis added]
We’re decreasing our defenses? Are you kidding me? Since when is the defensive requirements of, arguably, our most important forward base determined by environmental concerns? I’m all for reasonable environmental awareness in civilian communities and businesses but we cannot allow environmental concerns to dictate the defensive capability of our most important base. If we need waivers or legislative action or whatever, we need to free the military from environmental concerns that negatively impact vital defense requirements.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/guam-missile-defenses-conduct-first-ever-ballistic-intercept/
The whole draft of Einvironmental Impact Study can be downloaded here https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=491221
ReplyDeleteIt's tousands of pages and covers a large scope of topics which fall under the scope of environmental impact. One of those topics is water drainage for the sites (thousands of pages only regarding this). Considering the heavy rainfall of that can happen on the island it's extremely important, if water isn't drained correctly for example a defence site can flood and become useless. After draining the site you need to convey this water somewhere without creating safety hazards on an island that has a very heavy military presence and thus risking damage to important infrastructure.
Water drainage just one aspect, there can be a long list of aspects that can render a site enviromentaly unsafe (UXO, soil composition, interferences with communication systems, air traffic and much more). It appears at least one defence site requires an access road and much more that needs to be built from scratch in area with a long list of potential problems. These problems can be solved but it can be costly and complicated.
DeletePlease correct me if I'm misinterpreting but you seem to be suggesting that environmental impact is merely an engineering issue rather than the commonly understood environmental impact issue(s). What you've noted, water effects, is certainly a characteristic of the environment for the engineers to deal with, however, the bulk of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is traditional 'tree hugger' type concerns as evidenced by the following list of topic headings taken from the report you cited:
Delete3.1 Airspace Management
3.2 Health and Safety
3.3 Cultural Resources
3.4 Terrestrial Biological Resources
3.5 Socioeconomics
3.6 Environmental Justice and Protection of Children
3.7 Land Use and Recreational Resources
3.8 Transportation
3.9 Visual Quality
3.10 Utilities
3.11 Air Quality
3.12 Climate Change
3.13 Noise
3.14 Water Resources
3.15 Geological and Soil Resources
When we're allowing climate change, noise, recreation, environmental justice (whatever the hell that is), and socioeconomics, among other considerations, to dictate our defense, we have seriously lost sight of our priorities.
"we have seriously lost sight of our priorities"....
DeleteOh, now I understand your puzzlement. To wit, a robust defense is not the priority of those who now have their hands on the levers of government and authority....the priority now is an adherence to the new age religion of Marxist dialectic.
Hope that clears it up for you now, and lends clarity. They are not on our side. The rot runs deep.
This is not first missile defense test but first land-based Aegis system missile defense in Guam. There are plenty of Burkes can do the same job. One major benefit of land-based system is electricity supply thus longer radar range. Of course, drawback is mobility like Burkes.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, Burke demonstrated fire SM-3 to knock down a satellite.
"This is not first missile defense test but first land-based Aegis system missile defense in Guam."
DeleteYou're repeating the post.
Base defense has never really been a priority for the US military, especially the Air Force which is the anchor tenant at Guam. The last time our airbases came under attack from a peer opponent is outside living memory.
ReplyDeleteOne big worry of mine is drone defense for our ships in port. Small drones have short range, but an enemy could bypass that by having agents in the country with them before the start of war.
ReplyDeleteA small drone won't sink a surface ship. But a swarm of them might be able to do some damage, perhaps degrade a radar array. The thing I worry about is the submarines. One shaped-charge such as an RPG round or even just an anti-tank hand grenage could probably put a hole in a pressure hull and take it out of service for quite some time. Enough of these attacks, and you could possibly take out a half or third of the sub fleet at once. Including part of our nuclear deterrent!
I worry we're going to get out asses handed to us by a Pearl Harbor event like this. I think we ought to have substantial drone defense NOW, before something bad happens. There should be guns, jammers, lasers, and nets. Every ship in port, especially the subs, should have anti-drone nets already.
They will also need protection when exiting and entering the port.
The marines want to be a missile shooting island defense force, put them to work in the marinas chain protecting our bases there as well as other naval and air bases around the world. Instead of the short/medium range SSM, turn them into long range air defense units (including anti drone) and base defense forces.
ReplyDeleteThat's almost certainly how they'll be used. Unless the attacks are signaled well in advance there is almost no chance they'll be able to deploy to the first island chain in advance.
Delete"put them to work in the marinas chain protecting our bases"
DeleteThat's the old WWII coastal defense force. It is noteworthy that not a single coastal defense force succeeded in its mission. Every base that was attacked by the Japanese was conquered and generally quite quickly. Does that change your thinking about this?
Guam needs to be a 'tough out' as they would say in baseball.
ReplyDeleteAn enemy (the Chinese) need to be forced to spend significant resources to knock out Guam. That should also be true of any of our other bases.
That makes them make choices as to what they want to concentrate their limited resources against.
Otherwise it's just too easy to knock out everything in the western Pacific and push us back to Pearl Harbor.
The fact that we are dawdling on this shows how unserious our leaders are.
Lutefisk
"this shows how unserious our leaders are"
DeleteIs it a lack of seriousness or, much more ominously, a complete and utter lack of competency? A total absence of any professional knowledge or expertise? Do they simply not know how to go about defending a base; after all, we haven't had to do it since Guadalcanal?
Or ... and this is probably far more likely, is it a combination of lack of knowledge coupled with lack of focus as they go about their daily tasks dealing with diversity, gender, climate, politics, etc.? If you don't know how to do something, it's human nature to turn your attention to things you do know how to do like endless meetings about irrelevant topics.
"If you don't know how to do something, it's human nature to turn your attention to things you do know how to do like endless meetings about irrelevant topics."
DeleteThis reminds me of a vaguely similar comment a friend made in industry. "If you don't know how to measure what's important, you just find something you know how to measure and define it to be important". Obviously not the identical point, but vaguely related.
Avoidance.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Has our Navy become too corrupt to function?
ReplyDeleteGAO: U.S. Navy Wasted $2B on Failed Cruiser Modernization Effort
https://maritime-executive.com/article/gao-u-s-navy-wasted-2b-on-cruisers-in-failed-modernization-effort
You've got a few different issues contained within this one, seemingly simple comment.
Delete"Has our Navy become too corrupt to function?"
For its intended function, warfighting, yes, it's too corrupt to function well.
For its actual function, securing budget share, there is no such thing as too corrupt. The Navy is functioning brilliantly.
"Failed Cruiser Modernization Effort"
This is a fallacy. The cruiser modernization effort didn't fail. It succeeded brilliantly! It's purpose was never to modernize ships. It's purpose was to obfuscate the early retirement of the cruisers and hoodwink Congress. Those goals were totally achieved. The amount of money spent was irrelevant to the Navy.
You have to understand that the Aegis cruisers were potential obstacles for the Navy's future budget endeavors and had to go just like the Spruance class was a potential obstacle to the Aegis program and the Perrys were a potential obstacle to the LCS. In each case, the Navy dealt with the potential obstacles by permanently removing them.
As long as we keep in mind that the Navy's real purpose is budget share, all the Navy's actions are readily understandable and predictable.
That is a very cynical perspective on the matter.
DeleteI mean this is the United States Navy, not Enron.
Next you’ll be telling us that the get taught this stuff at Annapolis (they don’t, do they?)
"That is a very cynical perspective on the matter."
DeleteI go where the evidence leads. Perhaps you'd care to explain and justify the Fat Leonard scandal, the numerous groundings and collisions, the thirty some CO firings each year, the LCS class that was built and is already being retired, the vast cost overruns on every project, the blatant lies about the wonders of the LCS/Zumwalt/Ford, the debacle of minimal manning, the rusted out appearance of the fleet's ships, the criminally deferred maintenance resulting in mandatory early retirements, the failure to meet Congressionally mandated deadlines for reports, and so on?
Or, perhaps you'd like to list the wise decisions the Navy has made recently?
It is not cynical to recognize reality. It is, however, naive to ignore reality.
Absolutely spot on about the Tico modernization!!! It was 100% about getting rid of them. The Navy had no intention of keeping them. The way they sidestepped Congress is maybe the most blatant and frankly criminal example of Navy mismanagement, deception of civilian leadership, and corruption in recent history... and it's somthing a lot of flags should lose rank and retirement over (if not outright court martials)!!!
DeleteNo runways, no sorties: Chinese missiles threaten US airpower plans.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/12/17/no-runways-no-sorties-chinese-missiles-threaten-us-airpower-plans/
This article seems timely. The report its based on basically says we have a big problem with no easy fixes.
"American air bases “can no longer be considered a sanctuary.” That is the sobering conclusion of the U.S. Air Force’s new Installation Infrastructure Action Plan, released last week. Unlike the last 30 years, when U.S air bases were largely safe havens from enemy attacks, the document continues, “adversaries now possess high-end capabilities” that can threaten such installations.
This warning is correct, but it understates the threat.
In our new Stimson Center report, “Cratering Effects: Chinese Missile Threats to US Air Bases in the Indo-Pacific,” and co-authored with Jonathan Walker, we conclude that Chinese missile strikes could keep U.S. military runways and taxiways in Japan, Guam, and other Pacific islands closed in the critical first days — and even weeks — of a war between the United States and China. Even if the United States undertook massive investments in a mix of active and passive countermeasures, runways and taxiways would remain closed for at least the first several days of any conflict."
The article suggests that the only way around the problem is to have runway-independant drones to cover the first few days of a war when manned aircraft will be effectively grounded as the runways will be unusable. Sounds a bit like wishing for a magic wand when you consider US aircraft development cycles... The article and various reports its based on also seem to seriously underestimate Chinese industrial capacity, as usual. Just because we can't build war stocks of missiles quickly does NOT mean the Chinese can't. I believe the article seriously underestimates how long the Chinese could shut down INDOPAC runways.
I had a better look at this report, Stimson Center report, “Cratering Effects: Chinese Missile Threats to US Air Bases in the Indo-Pacific,”
Deletehttps://www.stimson.org/2024/cratering-effects-chinese-missile-threats-to-us-air-bases-in-the-indo-pacific/
Its pretty new, Dec 12th this year. There is a lot to it, including discussion of some of the industrial issues and how we may be throwing stones at the Chinese after a couple of days as we run out of anything more serious.
:
There are a few things that sprang to mind, mostly about stopping the US from accomplishing the Rapid Airfield Damage Recovery (RADR). Apparently, there is a plan: "The U.S. Air Force has also developed the Multi-Capable Airmen concept, in which personnel are trained to perform key tasks outside of their core specialty, including combat support and runway repair operations. The idea is is for civil engineers, along with maintenance, finance, medical, and operations support personnel, to fill craters and conduct other runway repairs, expediting the continued generation of sorties in wartime. If these additional personnel or alternative techniques reduced the time required for repairs, China would be required to re-attack repaired surface sections more frequently, shortening the total number of hours it could keep U.S. aircraft grounded."
OK, that's interesting, but taking Guam as an example, once you have cratered the runways and taxiways with DF-26s, what is to stop the Chinese from sneaking up to Guam with a few J-20 Mightly Dragons, which have pretty decent range, and launching some ground attack missiles with anti-personnel warheads at the craters and the people working to repair them? Timing should be somewhat randomized to create maximum impact. I'm sure all the non-combat types repairing the craters are going to be thrilled by that. There won't be much of a CAP (if any) to stop the Chinese as everything is on the ground due to runways being cratered, and you could in theory keep Guam out of action pretty much permanently at very little cost. Sure, you still have some Patriot capability, but not for long due to ammunition constraints.
I also noted that the RADR kits are not stored in hardened shelters. The materials used are somewhat esoteric, not just regular concrete and you won't be sourcing them locally.
Also, once the Chinese have air superiority, what is to stop them from picking off aircraft and vital installations like fuel, air defense and maintenance facilities at their leisure? It seems that the expenditure of a few DF-26s at the start of the conflict could be leveraged for some huge ongoing impacts that don't require you to keep up the (expensive) DF-26 strikes forever.
"We've discussed airbase attacks, extensively. See, No Fuel, No Fly
DeleteThere are many ways to put an airbase out of action but attacking runways isn't one of them, at least not effectively.
You're also overlooking the layered nature of any base defense - or, at least, what the defense should be! Aircraft are not the only means of base defense. A layered defense would consist of extensive surface to air missiles (Standard and ESSM or land equivalents) and radar systems (preventing your hypothesized J-20 follow up attack), naval forces (AAW and ASW ships), point defenses (land equivalents of CIWS and RAM), and carrier air (if present). Base defense should also include offensive strikes against attacking assets to prevent the attack from even beginning.
Don't misunderstand, forward base defense is a very challenging task but it's not quite as doomed as you portray it. Assuming we get off our behinds and start building up Guam's defenses, it would be a tough nut for China to crack though if China devotes enough resources to it, they certainly can crack it. Of course, every resource allocated against Guam is one that isn't available for use against Taiwan (presumably, their main initial objective).
I see runways as a means to an end. I did get a chance to read the whole study, and it changed my mind a bit. Hitting fuel storage tanks requires a pretty tight CEP unless its a really big tank farm that wasn't planned properly with everything jammed in too close together.
DeleteRunways, not so much. If you are using an ground-penetrating warhead it makes a real mess. Not because of a crater, but because it ruins soil compaction which means you have to dig it all out, then put it back compacted properly, then resurface. Not fun, and not fast.
As a result of reading the study, I have more of an open mind about what to hit first, particularly when your first strike is certain to be a ballistic missile barrage.
With the limited amount of reloads we have today or any time soon, a layered defense goes out the window pretty fast. I obviously agree with your vision of what a layered defense should be, but in practice for the foreseeable future we are back in magic wand territory.
"Runways, not so much. "
DeleteRunway repair simply isn't much of an issue. There are many levels of repair ranging from backfilling to laying a brand new concrete runway. Included in this is the range of pre-fab sections enabling an entire runway to be laid in a matter of hours.
You might want to take a look at this: Runway Repair
The entire expeditionary airfield concept revolves around rapid construction of runways. As I said, it's just not an issue. Fuel, on the other hand, is a major vulnerability. Take a look at the WWII Pearl Harbor fuel storage facility, for example. One hit anywhere in the area would have turned the entire thing into a raging inferno and crippled the Pacific Fleet for years. Again, I refer you to the post I previously linked about attacking airfields.
As a side note to incompetent leadership, the pentagon admitted today that they're not sure how many of our troops are in Syria. Are you shitting me!!!!
ReplyDeleteCoastal Artillery & Port Defense is not a US Navy responsibility. It is 100% the responsibility of the US Army.
ReplyDeleteDemand the West Point Mafia (who have run DOD for the last 20+ years) do their jobs!